4 ms·

It causes unnecessary suffering, enslavement and murder of tens of billions of animals, which are all intelligent living beings with feelings and wills to live;

by noondip 11y ago

It causes unnecessary suffering, enslavement and murder of tens of billions of animals, which are all intelligent living beings with feelings and wills to live; it's simply unethical to be cruel and violent to animals. [1][8] Meat and dairy is filled with junk [2]. Animal protein contributes to the acceleration of osteoporosis [3]. Cutting it out will lower your chance of disease [4]. Humans are herbivores [5]. Modern industrial animal agriculture is a major cause of global warming [6]. Cattle consume 16 times more grain than they produce as meat [7]. The U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat [9]. So, there is plenty wrong with eating the carcass of an animal mutilated in horrific ways. For me, it simply has to do with non-violence. 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK_KEQb_YVA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kK_KEQb_YVA 2. http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html 3. http://pcrm.org/search/?cid=1010 http://pcrm.org/search/?cid=1010 4. http://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Very-Low-Fat-Vegan-Diet-Increases.pdf http://www.ornishspectrum.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Very-Low-... 5. http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet/ 6. http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/21/factory-farming-global-warming/ http://ecowatch.com/2013/01/21/factory-farming-global-warmin... 7. https://books.google.com/books?id=ishlcmQuatoC&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.com/books?id=ishlcmQuatoC&pg=PA293&lpg=... 8. http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ http://modernfarmer.com/2014/03/pigheaded-smart-swine/ 9. http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-800-million-people-grain-livestock-eat http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/1997/08/us-could-feed-80...

Dylan16807 11y ago
We treat a lot of animals badly, but uh. We mutilate live and dead plants; that seems on par to me with mutilating dead animals. What's horrific about it? And that peta page is stupid. Unrelated: how do you define will to live?
- noondip 11y ago
  It's absolutely insipid to think that plants are akin to animals in any way. Plants are insentient and void of central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, blood, ears, and anuses.
  - matthewmacleod 11y ago
    What if we turned this around? "It's absolutely insipid to think that plants are different to animals in any way. Plants are alive, and contain cells and circulatory systems. They grow, consume food, respire and reproduce." It's obvious from the above that selecting a set of characteristics and asserting that they render a comparison 'insipid' doesn't really supply any information or make a coherent point.
    - noondip 11y ago
      > What if we turned this around? Then you would be making just as an asinine and ignorant statement which is factually correct, but grossly misrepresents the truth - that there is a distinct difference between plants and animals, but not so much between human and non-human animals. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...
      - matthewmacleod 11y ago
        Then you would be making just as an asinine and ignorant statement which is factually correct, but grossly misrepresents the truth Yes, I would be – exactly the same as the one you made previously. Animals and humans are alike. Animals and plants are also alike. Your argument therefore appears to be one of scale – plants are sufficiently different, in your opinion, that eating them is not mutilation. I'm of the opinion that animals are sufficiently different from humans that eating them is not mutilation. You see the problem?
  - Dylan16807 11y ago
    Corpses are insentient and void of working central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, etc. You didn't really answer either of my questions. What is 'horrific' about chopping up a dead animal, and what is a will to live?
  - norea-armozel 11y ago
    Actually, plants have analogs to neurotransmitters and other similar chemicals to sense their environment. I'm not saying you're eating Groot's cousin, but I would caution you not to assert that plants are not aware of their environment.
matthewmacleod 11y ago
it's simply unethical to be cruel and violent to animals That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Meat and dairy is filled with junk The US has a problem with food quality – this issue is orthogonal to the health benefits of various foods. You are always free to eat organic. Animal protein contributes to the acceleration of osteoporosis That's a controversial conclusion at best, and it's supported by a paper backed by a vegan lobbying organisation – not a problem in itself, but sufficient to require skepticism. Cutting it out will lower your chance of disease That statement is not supported by the research you supplied. Humans are herbivores We'll set aside the obvious problems with linking to PETA as reference. The description of humans as 'herbivores' is objectively untrue, given that at least 95% of humans worldwide are omnivorous. Modern industrial animal agriculture is a major cause of global warming [6]. Cattle consume 16 times more grain than they produce as meat [7]. The U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat [9]. No argument there. Eating meat is pretty clearly bad for the environment. That's arguably a separate issue. You're not really succeeded in supplying much in the way of convincing arguments, and you've managed to be rude in the process.
- bunderbunder 11y ago
  >at least 95% of humans worldwide are omnivorous. That even sounds like a pretty conservative figure to me. Lacto-ovo vegetarians are a class of omnivore, too, and I have a really hard time believing anything within an order of magnitude of 5% of humans are strict vegetarians.
- noondip 11y ago
  > That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Why is it always the responsibility, throughout history, of a vocal minority to convince others that violence against a group is wrong? No, empathy isn't my personal view, it is shared by any rational and sane person, who will agree animals have an inherent right to be free of pain and suffering. Or do you dare assert humans have an exclusive monopoly on freedom? > You are always free to eat organic. Good grief. Organic poison is still poison. Please see this page for many cited examples of health benefits from a vegan diet, and risks of a non-vegan one: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ > it's supported by a paper backed by a vegan lobbying organisation Just as claims that milk, cheese, egg and meat products are necessary are lobbied by animal agriculture organizations. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-could-the-usda-get-any-cheesier/ http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-c...
tim333 11y ago
I agree with most points but [5] that humans are herbivores seems a little dubious. If most eat meat, even though it typically costs more than veg, doesn't that make us omnivores pretty much by definition?

by noondip 11y ago

Dylan16807 11y ago

We treat a lot of animals badly, but uh. We mutilate live and dead plants; that seems on par to me with mutilating dead animals. What's horrific about it? And that peta page is stupid. Unrelated: how do you define will to live?

noondip 11y ago
It's absolutely insipid to think that plants are akin to animals in any way. Plants are insentient and void of central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, kidneys, intestines, blood, ears, and anuses.
- matthewmacleod 11y ago
  What if we turned this around? "It's absolutely insipid to think that plants are different to animals in any way. Plants are alive, and contain cells and circulatory systems. They grow, consume food, respire and reproduce." It's obvious from the above that selecting a set of characteristics and asserting that they render a comparison 'insipid' doesn't really supply any information or make a coherent point.
  - noondip 11y ago
    > What if we turned this around? Then you would be making just as an asinine and ignorant statement which is factually correct, but grossly misrepresents the truth - that there is a distinct difference between plants and animals, but not so much between human and non-human animals. http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConscious...
    - matthewmacleod 11y ago
      Then you would be making just as an asinine and ignorant statement which is factually correct, but grossly misrepresents the truth Yes, I would be – exactly the same as the one you made previously. Animals and humans are alike. Animals and plants are also alike. Your argument therefore appears to be one of scale – plants are sufficiently different, in your opinion, that eating them is not mutilation. I'm of the opinion that animals are sufficiently different from humans that eating them is not mutilation. You see the problem?
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  Corpses are insentient and void of working central nervous systems, lungs, hearts, etc. You didn't really answer either of my questions. What is 'horrific' about chopping up a dead animal, and what is a will to live?
- norea-armozel 11y ago
  Actually, plants have analogs to neurotransmitters and other similar chemicals to sense their environment. I'm not saying you're eating Groot's cousin, but I would caution you not to assert that plants are not aware of their environment.

matthewmacleod 11y ago

it's simply unethical to be cruel and violent to animals That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Meat and dairy is filled with junk The US has a problem with food quality – this issue is orthogonal to the health benefits of various foods. You are always free to eat organic. Animal protein contributes to the acceleration of osteoporosis That's a controversial conclusion at best, and it's supported by a paper backed by a vegan lobbying organisation – not a problem in itself, but sufficient to require skepticism. Cutting it out will lower your chance of disease That statement is not supported by the research you supplied. Humans are herbivores We'll set aside the obvious problems with linking to PETA as reference. The description of humans as 'herbivores' is objectively untrue, given that at least 95% of humans worldwide are omnivorous. Modern industrial animal agriculture is a major cause of global warming [6]. Cattle consume 16 times more grain than they produce as meat [7]. The U.S. could feed 800 million people with grain that livestock eat [9]. No argument there. Eating meat is pretty clearly bad for the environment. That's arguably a separate issue. You're not really succeeded in supplying much in the way of convincing arguments, and you've managed to be rude in the process.

bunderbunder 11y ago
>at least 95% of humans worldwide are omnivorous. That even sounds like a pretty conservative figure to me. Lacto-ovo vegetarians are a class of omnivore, too, and I have a really hard time believing anything within an order of magnitude of 5% of humans are strict vegetarians.
noondip 11y ago
> That's an assertion of your personal view, and not at all objective. Why is it always the responsibility, throughout history, of a vocal minority to convince others that violence against a group is wrong? No, empathy isn't my personal view, it is shared by any rational and sane person, who will agree animals have an inherent right to be free of pain and suffering. Or do you dare assert humans have an exclusive monopoly on freedom? > You are always free to eat organic. Good grief. Organic poison is still poison. Please see this page for many cited examples of health benefits from a vegan diet, and risks of a non-vegan one: http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ http://nutritionfacts.org/topics/vegans/ > it's supported by a paper backed by a vegan lobbying organisation Just as claims that milk, cheese, egg and meat products are necessary are lobbied by animal agriculture organizations. http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-could-the-usda-get-any-cheesier/ http://www.foodpolitics.com/2010/11/lets-ask-marion-nestle-c...

tim333 11y ago

I agree with most points but [5] that humans are herbivores seems a little dubious. If most eat meat, even though it typically costs more than veg, doesn't that make us omnivores pretty much by definition?